A Scientist on Nostr: I've never read his work so probably don't have a valid take. But watching that video ...
I've never read his work so probably don't have a valid take. But watching that video for a few minutes I came away feeling like he has unstated a priori assumptions about both science and reality that I don’t share and the core of his thesis seems to me to be a faulty extrapolation of those assumptions. His faith in his theoretical model also make his claims feel like overreach to me.
That said, I have a lot of overlap with a lot of his conclusions and although I don't think he can legitimately dismiss the notion of reality altogether (which he does seem to be trying to do, but again that may be a bad read by me because I have not studied his work), I think he and I would agree that whatever actually _IS_ we don't and can't know that.
Although he and I seem to share a lot of academic background (I'd be surprised if we don't have colleagues in common) and I have done a fair bunch of work in cognitive evolution and come to a lot of the same conclusions in that work, I think that he would probably classify my position with regard to "reality" as more "philosophical" than "scientific."
He seems to want to believe that evolutionary theory is some kind of solid ground that he can stand on to make epistemological pronouncements. My view is simpler: there is no ground (there is no spoon, Neo).
To me, basing an organisms non-access to direct perception of reality on an evolutionary argument is not exactly *wrong*, but it is unnecessary and over-complicating.
If you just take a moment to think it through logically, it's immediately obvious that we can never know what we don't know and that means we necessarily do not and cannot (ever) know what _IS_ altogether.
That said, I have a lot of overlap with a lot of his conclusions and although I don't think he can legitimately dismiss the notion of reality altogether (which he does seem to be trying to do, but again that may be a bad read by me because I have not studied his work), I think he and I would agree that whatever actually _IS_ we don't and can't know that.
Although he and I seem to share a lot of academic background (I'd be surprised if we don't have colleagues in common) and I have done a fair bunch of work in cognitive evolution and come to a lot of the same conclusions in that work, I think that he would probably classify my position with regard to "reality" as more "philosophical" than "scientific."
He seems to want to believe that evolutionary theory is some kind of solid ground that he can stand on to make epistemological pronouncements. My view is simpler: there is no ground (there is no spoon, Neo).
To me, basing an organisms non-access to direct perception of reality on an evolutionary argument is not exactly *wrong*, but it is unnecessary and over-complicating.
If you just take a moment to think it through logically, it's immediately obvious that we can never know what we don't know and that means we necessarily do not and cannot (ever) know what _IS_ altogether.